St. Johnsbury Caledonian. [volume] (St. Johnsbury, Vt.) 1867-1919, 1887-12-15
THE SUPREME COURT ON PROHI-
BITION.
SDrinofeld Republican.


The decision of the United States
supreme court confirming the validity
of the Kansas prOhibitory laws is of
great interest and Importance. The
cases were two of Peter Mugler, plain
tiff in error against the state of Kan
sas, and one of the state against Her
man ZiebOld and others. In both the
opponents of the state were brewers,
whose establishments had been de-
clared nuisances and where liquors
had been destroyed. The lower courts
decided against Mugler and for lie
bold the supreme court reverses the
decision in the latter case and affirms
it in the other two. Justice Harlan
delivered the opinion of the cOutt.
The right to sell Intoxicating liquor,
he said, is not one of the rights of citi
zenship, and therefore cannot be Sc
cured by the 18th amendment. The
alleged invasion of personal liberty in
state prohibition of the manufacture of
liquor for ones own use or for export,
does not exist, because the right so to
manufacture is subject to the restric
ton that it shall not endanger or affect
the rights of others. Society has the
right and power to protect itself
against the injurious consequences of
such business, and that right and pow
er is lodged in the legislative branch
of government, exerting the police
powers of the state.
The Kansas statute cannot be con-
sidered an improper exercise of those
powers, for we cannot shut out of
view the fact that the public health,
morals and safety are endangered by
the use of Intoxicating drinks. The
courts usurp legislative functions
when they decide against such IA law
as that of Kansas. The supreme court
has decided that the 18th amendment
does not take from the states those
powers of police reserved at the time
the constitution was adopted. Jus
tice Harlan goes on to consider the
contention of the brewers that the
state cannot enforce it's law against the
manufacture of liquors upon those who
own property whose chief value is for
manufacturing purposes, without com
pensatiOn for the lessened value of
such property. He declares that this
contention is admissible. The princi-
pie that no person shall be deprived of
life liberty or property without due
process of law was embodied in the
constitutions of the states at the time
the 18th amendment was adopted, and
has never been regarded as incOmpati-
BILE with the equally vital principle
that all property is held under the i'm
piled obligation that it's use shall not
be injurious to others or the cOmmu-
nifty.
A prohibition on the use of property
for specific purposes that are declared
by valid legislation to be injurious to
the health, morals or safety of the COM
cannot in any just sense be
deemed the taking of property for the
public benefit, so that the matter is
not governed by the rules of eminent
domain. The state also has full pow
er to declare any place kept for the
and sale of such liquors a
to be abated and at the
same time provide for the Indictment
and trial of the offender against the
property so used. And finally, a jury |
trial is not required in suits in equity |
brought to enjoin a public nuisance.
Justice Field, the Gissentient, agrees
that Kansas can prohibit the sale of
liquors manufactured in the state after
the passage of the act, but not that she
IAN prohibit their manufacture for eX
this, because he doubts
the state can forbid the sale of
any article which congress may author
re to be imported. Nor did he agree
with the opinion in regard to the inju
~ To the brewers property or the de-
structiOn of liquors after the closing of
4 brewery.